Improvement of vulnerability curves using data from extreme events: debris flow event in South Tyrol

Abstract

Alpine hazards such as debris flow, floods, snow avalanches, rock falls, and landslides pose a significant threat to local communities. The assessment of the vulnerability of the built environment to these hazards in the context of risk analysis is a topic that is growing in importance due to global environmental change impacts as well as socioeconomic changes. Hence, the vulnerability is essential for the development of efficient risk reduction strategies. In this contribution, a methodology for the development of a vulnerability curve as a function of the intensity of the process and the degree of loss is presented. After some modifications, this methodology can also be used for other types of hazards in the future. The curve can be a valuable tool in the hands of local authorities, emergency and disaster planners since it can assist decision making and cost-benefit analysis of structural protection measures by assessing the potential cost of future events. The developed methodology is applied in two villages (Gand and Ennewasser) located in Martell valley, South Tyrol, Italy. In the case study area, buildings and infrastructure suffered significant damages following a debris flow event in August 1987. The event caused extensive damage and was very well documented. The documented data were used to create a vulnerability curve that shows the degree of loss corresponding to different process intensities. The resulting curve can be later used in order to assess the potential economic loss of future events. Although the validation process demonstrated the reliability of the results, a new damage assessment documentation is being recommended and presented. This documentation might improve the quality of the data and the reliability of the curve. The presented research has been developed in the European FP7 project MOVE (Methods for the Improvement of Vulnerability Assessment in Europe).

Assessing fragility of a reinforced concrete element to snow avalanches using a non-linear mass-spring model

“…On the contrary, for mass flow gravity-driven hazards, few fragility relationships have been developed so far. Indeed, the 5 prevailing lack of documented fragility relationships in snow avalanche engineering can also be observed in rockfall (Mavrouli, 2010;Mavrouli and Corominas, 2010), or landslide (Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2012) engineering. Numerical fragility curves are mainly derived using the well-established framework of reliability analysis (e.g.…”

A physical approach on flood risk vulnerability of buildings

“…In contrast, engineers and natural scientists define vulnerability as the degree of loss to an element at risk as a result of the impact of a hazard with a given frequency and magnitude (Fell et al, 2008), regularly assessed based on empirical data or modelled scenarios. As a consequence, there is neither a common definition for vulnerability nor a standardized methodology for an integrative vulnerability assessment available (Fuchs et al, 2007;Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2011), the only available concepts remain fragmentary with respect to a practical implementation (Birkmann et al, 2013). However, the different dimensions of vulnerability such as physical (structural), social, economic, or institutional vulnerability, although maybe differently defined, are connected to each other.…”

“…However, the different dimensions of vulnerability such as physical (structural), social, economic, or institutional vulnerability, although maybe differently defined, are connected to each other. Structural or physical vulnerability is hereby seen as a prerequisite or starting point, resulting in physical loss and may influence the other dimensions of vulnerability (Fuchs, 2009;Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2011;Kappes et al, 2012a, b).…”

“…Recently, the physical vulnerability of buildings exposed to torrent processes has been studied comprehensively in different mountain regions of Europe facing both the aim to compute vulnerability functions for use in operational risk assessment (Fuchs et al, 2007;Papathoma-Köhle et al, 2012;Totschnig and Fuchs, 2013) and to implement local structural mitigation measures (Holub and Fuchs, 2008;Holub et al, 2012, Hawkesbury-Nepean Floodplain Management Steering Committee, 2006. Despite these efforts, considerable research gaps still remain open: while the first studies combined empirical loss data with information on one process parameter (deposition height) resulting in damageloss functions, the latter studies were solely focused from a practical perspective on the reduction of structural vulnerability of individual buildings.…”

Climate change, uncertainty, and consequent risks: opportunities for forest management adaptation in britain

“…The limitation of this approach is in evaluating and precisely defining the critical value while omitting responses of the system to other degrees of exposure. By contrast, the second approach uses the range of possible impacts known as loss functions or ratios (Kerns & Ager 2007) or vulnerability curves (Papathoma-Köhle et al 2012). These curves define the response of the system to degrees of impact, in our case tree growth across the range of drought levels.…”